or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Negative Blood Type - Page 3

post #41 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by demoonunit View Post

Found this article on the harm of prenatal Rhogam shots here: http://www.vaccinetruth.org/rhogam.htm . Not sure it's a credible source, but interesting nevertheless.

 

 



It's not credible. Any site that claims that by dietary changes you can change whether you are Rh negative or not is a crock. Unless they have found some revolutionary diet that can change your DNA. It is impossible to change your blood type, it is genetic, encoded in your DNA.

post #42 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by stik View Post

So who the heck is "Dr Sherri," and what is she a doctor of?  I'm working on that.  

 

 

Probably Dr. Sherri Tenpenny.
 

 



Quote:
Originally Posted by BeanSprout Mama View Post

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong here - math is not my strongest suit - but I believe that dropping the risk from 1% with only a postpartum dose to 0.1% with a prenatal dose is a 90% decrease, since .1 is 10% of 1.  I think a 90% decrease is pretty darn good, personally, and given the very serious health risks to the baby I'd jump at the chance to decrease the risk to my child by 90% if I were rh-. But that's me.

 

ETA: Also, I am not understanding how a baby being weakly coombs positive at birth is proof that the Rhogam shot is bad. Yes, it shows that the baby was exposed to low levels of antibodies that attacked the baby's red blood cells. However, that is the ENTIRE reason for getting the rhogam shot in the first place - to prevent the mother's body from making those antibodies which can then cause HDN in the baby.You could argue that the antibodies were caused by the rhogam but you could also just as easily argue that the antibodies were kept in check by the rhogam and that the babies were prevented from becoming more seriously ill because their mothers had the shot. Honestly, I just don't understand the logic in arguing against a shot intended to prevent the mother's body from forming antibodies against the baby's red blood cells by saying that some babies whose mothers received the shot show very weak levels of those antibodies at birth.  That doesn't compute for me. If you want to explain it more in depth for me I'm happy to learn, but right now that argument just doesn't make sense to me at all.



Sorry, math really isn't my strong suit either.

 

The problem is the antibodies are from the Rhogam shot. Those antibodies cross the placenta and attack the red blood cells of the Rh positive fetus. They do exactly what they supposedly prevent. The baby is still attacked, it's just it's attacked by the antibodies from the Rhogam instead of it's mother. And since it requires fetal blood mixing with maternal blood twice during the pregnancy for the current baby to be affected (once to sensitize and once to produce antibodies) the odds are incredibly high (98-99%) that the current baby would never have encountered antibodies against them if the mother hadn't gotten the Rhogam shot.

 

The problem with the routine Rhogam shot, and something I think a lot of people don't really understand, is that it does nothing for the current baby, it's to protect future pregnancies. I really am not sure why so many people seem to be so adamant about protecting a possible future baby by getting a shot during pregnancy that even the manufacturer admits can harm the [b]present[/b] baby, especially when getting the shot after the baby is born reduces the chances of problems with future babies much more effectively and has no risk of harming the current baby.

 

Obviously, if you have something happen which could sensitize you (miscarriage, abortion, severe abdominal trauma, amnio), you should have the shot even during pregnancy because the current baby is then at a much greater risk from your antibodies.

 

post #43 of 47
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Demoonunit, I commend you for stopping short of cutting&pasting the entire page from vaccinetruth.  You censored out the baby-killing herbal supplement regimen designed to change your blood type by "purifying" your blood of something that isn't there.  Thank you.


I got the quote from my father in an email...I did not know there was more in the web page. I appreciate you pointing that out, but the attitude is not necessary. I thought this was supposed to be a supportive, dare I even say it--friendly group where we exchange ideas and knowledge without belittling others. Guess I was wrong.

post #44 of 47

Demoonit, i appreciated the information, even if i wasnt convinced by it. Thanks for posting. (cutting and pasting doesnt bother meshrug.gif)

post #45 of 47

Do not google Rhogam, gogle  hemolytic disease of the newborn (HDN). 

 

Do you know anyone who died from it? No, neither you nor I know anyone who died from it. Before 1968, about 10 thousands babies died from HDN in US.

 

HDN was discovered not by some evil OB but by a French MW in 17th century.  

 

The reasons  why you providers are so insistent is that small number of fetal and maternal cells mix and it happens without any trauma.   It became known when Kleihauer-Betke test was invented. It is quiet sensitive.  

 

Internet is all goog, but you hired professional to keep you and your baby safe. Request another appoitment , sit down with them and talk to them. Would you listen to an advice  to a bunch  of lay people on the internet about your car? I doubtit,  as no one want their engine to explode.  You would go to car mechanic .

 

 

post #46 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by demoonunit View Post





I got the quote from my father in an email...I did not know there was more in the web page. I appreciate you pointing that out, but the attitude is not necessary. I thought this was supposed to be a supportive, dare I even say it--friendly group where we exchange ideas and knowledge without belittling others. Guess I was wrong.


I'm sorry I sounded snarky. I genuinely am thankful, especially now that I know the info was sent to you by your dad. We all have crazy relatives, and sane relatives who go a little nuts when they're trying to be helpful. It's good to know that, at the very least, yours aren't unintentionally recommending a massive dose of abortifacaents plus some arsenic and cyanide in their efforts to help with your concern.

That's the kind of thing that keeps me awake at night - the idea that someone would take crackpot advice they found on the web, and seriously harm themselves or their child in an effort to avoid a prophylactic injection with an excellent record of safety and efficacy.
post #47 of 47

bottom line- getting information from the internet generally sucks.  you will always find what you are looking to hear/most afraid of/etc.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: January 2012